Non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing printer driver causing computing device to perform prohibition processing, and print control method of the printer driver

ABSTRACT

A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a printer driver, when being executed by a processor of the computing device, causes a computing device to perform prohibition processing including: obtaining setup items associated with print features of the printer device and corresponding option values from PrintTicket, to create check data; checking the check data for a setup item causing a conflict between option values; and in response to finding a setup item causing a conflict between option values, replacing an option value in the PrintTicket, which is set for the setup item causing the conflict, with another option value.

This application is based on Japanese Patent Application No. 2014-096483filed on May 8, 2014, in the Japan Patent Office, the entire content ofwhich is hereby incorporated by reference.

TECHNICAL FIELD

The present invention relates to a non-transitory computer-readablestorage medium storing a printer driver therein and a print controlmethod. In particular, the present invention relates to a non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium storing a version 4 printer driverwhich is capable of running on Windows operating systems (WINDOWS is aregistered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States andother countries, and the same shall apply hereinafter) and a method ofprohibition processing of the printer driver.

BACKGROUND

With regard to printer drivers which are capable of running on Windowsoperating systems, Microsoft corporation (MICROSOFT is a registeredtrademark of Microsoft Corporation in the United States and othercountries, and the same shall apply hereinafter) provides guidelines forhardware manufacturers. According to the guidelines, hardwaremanufacturers have provided version 3 printer drivers on the assumptionthe printer drivers work with Windows operating systems from Windows2000 to Windows 7.

As the succeeding operating systems, there arrived Windows 8 and WindowsServer 2012. Especially, since Windows 8 employs a metro-style userinterface, which is a new and tile-like user interface, hardwaremanufacturers are developing version 4 printer drivers which employ anew printer driver architecture for those operating systems.

Such a version 4 printer driver model has a structure roughly dividedinto two layers of a printer driver core component and a print setup UI(User Interface) component. These two layers are designed so as toseparate their processes from each other, which realizes that the twolayers can be provided separately.

The printer driver core component is an application which supplies printfeatures. The printer driver core component causes, when being executed,a computing device to create print capability information referred to asPrintCapabilities and print setup information referred to asPrintTicket, on the basis of a data file like a GPD (Generic PrinterDescription) file including definition of print features, and to handlea conflict between settings associated with the print features.

The print setup UI component is an application being independent fromthe printer driver core component, and provides a setup user interfaceon the basis of PrintCapabilities and PrintTicket supplied from theprinter driver core component.

For a purpose of executing print processing appropriately, such aprinter driver, when being executed, causes a computing device toperform a process of checking an occurrence of a conflict betweensettings such as setup items and option values (referred to asprohibition processing). An increase of period of prohibition processingtime delays a start time of print processing. In view of the problem,Japanese Unexamined Patent Publication (JP-A) No. 2012-226696 disclosesa printer driver which causes a computing device to process informationabout print processing of a printer device. The printer driver includesa converting and storing module and an output module. The converting andstoring module converts a structured data in which constraints aboutprinting are described in a structured language into constraint datawhich is binary data in a multidimensional array, and makes a storagedevice to store the converted constraint data. The output moduledetermines a constraint by using the constraint data stored and outputsa determined result. The conversion of the structured data intoconstraint data being binary data is conducted in order to increase thespeed of the prohibition processing.

Though it takes relatively short time for the constraint prohibition ina version 3 printer driver, because a language such as C and C++ is usedfor the processing, the prohibition processing in a version 4 printerdriver needs long time, because JavaScript (JAVASCRIPT is a registeredtrademark of Oracle America, Inc.) is used for the prohibitionprocessing.

Concretely, in processing of a version 4 printer driver, a functionreferred to as validatePrintTicket( ) defined by JavaScript is invokedin response to receiving instructions of the prohibition processing forman application or an operating system. The function checks whethercurrent option values described in the PrintTicket cause a conflict ofoption values. As a result of the check, if the option values include anoption value causing such a conflict, the function solves the conflict,and returns information indicating whether a process to solve theconflict has been conducted, as a return value, to the application orthe operating system. It takes long time for such processing.

The number of times the function validatePrintTicket( ) is invokeddepends on the application and the operating system. The function can beinvoked plural times for one process of printing, and instructions toperform the prohibition processing can be given several times for oneand the same PrintTicket. Therefore, the time period needed for theprohibition processing using the function further increases by aboutfive to ten times in comparison with the case that an equivalentprocessing is carried out by using a language such as C and C++. Thissituation newly arises from the feature of a version 4 printer driver.An increase of the prohibition processing delays a start time of printprocessing, which remarkably impairs the user's convenience.

SUMMARY

There are disclosed illustrative non-transitory computer-readablestorage media each storing a printer driver and illustrative printcontrol method of the printer driver.

An illustrative non-transitory computer-readable storage mediumreflecting one aspect of the present invention stores a printer driverto be executed in a computing device which gives print instructions to aprinter device. The printer driver, when being executed by a processorof the computing device, causing the computing device to performprohibition processing comprising: obtaining setup items associated withprint features of the printer device and option values set for the setupitems from PrintTicket, to create check data by using the setup itemsand the option values. The prohibition processing further compriseschecking the check data for a setup item causing a conflict betweenoption values; and in response to finding a setup item causing aconflict between option values, replacing an option value in thePrintTicket, which is set for the setup item causing the conflict withthe option values among the setup items in the PrintTicket, with anotheroption value which does not cause a conflict between option values.

An illustrative method reflecting another aspect of the presentinvention is a print control method of a printer driver to be executedin a computing device which gives print instructions to a printerdevice. The printer driver, when being executed by a processor of thecomputing device, causes the computing device to perform prohibitionprocessing. The method comprises: obtaining setup items associated withprint features of the printer device and option values set for the setupitems from PrintTicket, to create check data by using the setup itemsand the option values; checking the check data for a setup item causinga conflict between option values; and in response to finding a setupitem causing a conflict between option values, replacing an option valuein the PrintTicket, which is set for the setup item causing the conflictwith the option values among the setup items in the PrintTicket, withanother option value which does not cause a conflict between optionvalues.

Other features of illustrative embodiments will be described below.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Embodiments will now be described, by way of example only, withreference to the accompanying drawings which are meant to be exemplary,not limiting, and wherein like elements numbered alike in severalfigures, in which:

FIG. 1 is a diagram schematically illustrating a constitution of aprinting system relating to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a constitution of a computingdevice relating to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 3 is a functional block diagram of a computing device relating toone embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a GPD file relating to one embodimentof the present invention;

FIG. 5 is a flowchart illustrating prohibition processing of a computingdevice relating to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 6 is a flowchart illustrating prohibition processing (process ofchecking for a conflict between option values) of a computing devicerelating to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 7 illustrates an example of PrintTicket (PrintTicket (1) to bechecked) relating to one embodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 8 illustrates an example of PrintTicket (PrintTicket (2) obtainedafter prohibiting processing is performed on PrintTicket (1)) relatingto one embodiment of the present invention;

FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrate an example of a hash code table for use inprohibition processing relating to one embodiment of the presentinvention;

Each of FIGS. 10A to 10C illustrates an example of PrintTicket to whicha hash value is added, for use in prohibition processing relating to oneembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a setup item list for use inprohibition processing relating to one embodiment of the presentinvention;

FIG. 12 illustrates an example of a setup condition table (a tableprepared by adding option values before the prohibition processing isconducted to the setup items shown in FIG. 11) relating to oneembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 13 illustrates an example of a setup condition table (a tableprepared by adding option values after the prohibition processing hasbeen conducted to the setup items shown in FIG. 11) relating to oneembodiment of the present invention;

FIG. 14 illustrates an example of a constraint expression for use inprohibition processing relating to one embodiment of the presentinvention;

FIGS. 15A, 15B and 15C are diagrams for illustrating effects of varioustypes of controls of the prohibition processing relating to oneembodiment of the present invention, FIG. 15A illustrates effectsobtained when comparison of hash values is conducted in the prohibitionprocessing, FIG. 15B illustrates effects obtained when the prohibitionprocessing is conducted by using a setup condition table, and FIG. 15Cillustrates effects obtained when the processing of FIG. 15A and theprocessing 15B are conducted;

FIG. 16 is a diagram schematically illustrating prohibition processingrelating to one embodiment of the present invention; and

FIGS. 17A and 17B are diagrams for comparing the prohibition processingrelating to one embodiment of the present invention and conventionalprohibition processing.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Illustrative embodiments of non-transitory computer-readable storagemedia each storing a printer driver and print control methods of theprinter driver will be described with reference to the drawings. It willbe appreciated by those of ordinary skill in the art that thedescription given herein with respect to those figures is for exemplarypurposes only and is not intended in any way to limit the scope ofpotential embodiments may be resolved by referring to the appendedclaims.

According to the non-transitory computer-readable storage media eachstoring a printer driver and print control methods of the printer driveras the illustrative embodiments, prohibition processing which includes aprocess of checking for a conflict between option values associated withprint features can be carried out efficiently, because of the followingreason.

The printer driver (JavaScript constraint section), when being executedby a processor of the computing device, causes a computing device toperform the following prohibition processing. The processing includesreading setup items associated with print features of a printer deviceand corresponding option values from PrintTicket to be checked, andcreating check data by using the setup items and the option values. Theprocessing further includes checking the check data for an occurrence ofa conflict between option values; and in response to finding theoccurrence of the conflict, replacing an option value in thePrintTicket, which is set for the setup item causing the conflict, withanother option value which does not cause a conflict between optionvalues. In concrete terms, in the process of checking the check data foran occurrence of a conflict between option values, an option value inthe check data, which is set for the setup item causing the conflict, isreplaced with another option value which does not cause a conflictbetween option values, and information indicating that the option valuehas been replaced is added to the check data. Then, in the process ofreplacing the option value in the PrintTicket, the option value in thePrintTicket, which is set for the setup item causing the conflict, isreplaced with the option value in the check data which does not cause aconflict between option values.

The above-described processing makes a process of reading PrintTicket,which is relatively large in data size, for each of constraintexpressions, unnecessary. Therefore, even under the condition that theprohibition processing is carried out by using a script language likeJavaScript, the period of the prohibition processing can be shortenedand thereby the time until a start time of print processing can beshortened.

As illustrated in the descriptions about the background, hardwaremanufactures provide printer drivers for Windows operating systems andare further developing version 4 printer drivers for new Windowsoperating systems such as Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012.

Such a version 4 printer driver is needed to use a script language, suchas JavaScript, for prohibition processing, and it takes longer time forsuch the prohibition processing in comparison with a case that anequivalent processing is carried out by using a language such as C orC++. In special, the function validatePrintTicket( ) can be invokedplural times for one process of printing, and a cheek for a conflictbetween option values is conducted plural times for one and the samePrintTicket. As a result, the period of time needed for the prohibitionprocessing increases, and a start time of print processing delays.

This tendency is described on the basis of measured data. Table 1 showsperiods of processing time from time of a user's operation to press aprint button on a print setup screen to time when a creation of printdata has been completed. The periods of the processing time in the tableare average values obtained by measuring the above-described period ofprocessing time five times in each of a condition that the processinguses prohibition processing and a condition that the processing does notuse prohibition processing, and calculating an average of the measuredvalues. There are two kinds of test data as measurement targets,document “SPO3P_AC.pdf” composed of one page and document “J9.doc”composed of five pages. As the measurement environment, Windows 8 Pro,Intel Core i5-2400 CPU 3.10 GHz (INTEL CORE is a registered trademark ofIntel Corporation), 8.00 GB memory, and 400 GB (remaining 100 GB) HDDwere used; and the documents were processed by using applications, AdobeReader 11.0.3 (ADOBE and READER are either registered trademarks ofAdobe Systems) and Microsoft Word 2010.

TABLE 1 Ratio of With Period of period of prohi- Without prohibitionprohibition bition prohibition processing processing processingprocessing time time Document (sec) (sec) (sec) (%) SP03P_AC.pdf 13.584.4 9.18 67.6 J9.doc 9.53 4.95 4.58 48.06

In Table 1, the period of prohibition processing time was obtained bycalculating a difference of the measurement time in the case that theprohibition processing has been carried out and the measurement time inthe case that the prohibition processing has not been carried out. Asshown in Table 1, each of the periods of prohibition processing timeobtained for the two kinds of the test data is in the range of about 45%to about 70% of the period of the processing time until the time whenthe creation of print data has been completed, measured under thecondition that the processing uses prohibition processing. That is, theratio of the period of the prohibition processing time to the period ofprint processing is very large. Therefore, it is important to shortenthe period of prohibition processing time, in order to carry out printprocessing rapidly.

As for the issue, a conventional version 3 printer driver uses C or C++for prohibition processing and the prohibition processing is completedin less than one second. Therefore, the period of the prohibitionprocessing did not matter. On the other hand, a version 4 printer driveruses a script language, such as JavaScript, for prohibition processingand it increases the prohibition processing time. In particular, it hasbeen ascertained that an operating system and an application giveinstructions to execute prohibition processing many times duringprocessing of one and the same PrintTicket. Performing prohibitionprocessing many times on the same PrintTicket furthermore increases theprohibition processing time. Therefore, there is a demand to shorten theprohibition processing time.

In view of that, the present inventor has focused on the fact that, in aprocess of checking for a conflict of option values and/or option itemsby using constraint expressions, reading PrintTicket, which isrelatively large in data size, for each constraint expression is a chieffactor of an increase of the prohibition processing time, and hasprovided the following printer driver as one embodiment of the presentinvention. The printer driver uses a script language, such asJavaScript, for prohibition processing. The printer driver causes, whenbeing executed, a computing device to read setup items and correspondingoption values from PrintTicket described in a structured language likeXML (Extensible Markup Language); create check data which is small indata size; check the check data for invalid settings such as a setupitem causing a conflict between the option values; and replace an optionvalue in the PrintTicket, which is set for a setup item causing theconflict, with another option value. Concretely, the printer driver,when being executed, causes a computing device to read the check datafor each of constraint expressions; check the check data for a conflictbetween option values; replace an option value in the check data, whichis set for a setup item which causes the conflict, with an option valuewhich does not cause a conflict with other option values; and addinformation indicating that the option value has been replaced, into thecheck data. Then, when the check process has been completed, the printerdriver causes the computing device to refer to the information added tothe check data; define the setup item which causes the conflict; andreplace the option value in PrintTicket, which is set for the setup itemconcerned, with the option value in the check data.

Effects which can be obtained by carrying out the above-describedcontrol in prohibition processing will be descried. FIGS. 17A and 17Bare diagrams for comparing a conventional method to read PrintTicket forprohibition processing and a conventional to read a table forprohibition processing as one embodiment of the present invention. FIG.17A illustrates PrintTicket for showing a conventional way to read thePrintTicket for prohibition processing. The conventional way needs aprocess to read setup items and corresponding setup option values fromPrintTicket which is relatively large in data size, and a part of thePrintTicket, which is not used for the check for a complicit of optionvalues is needed to be read. Since such processing is carried out foreach of constraint expressions, it elongates the total processing time.On the other hand, FIG. 17B illustrates a table for showing a way to usethe table for prohibition processing, employed in one embodiment of thepresent invention. According to the illustrated way in FIG. 17B, theprohibition processing can be carried out by reading just setup itemsand corresponding option values which are necessary for the check of aconflict of option values from check data (the illustrated table) whichis relatively smaller in data size than PrintTicket. It reduces theprocessing time greatly. In special, a use of check data described in atext format, rather than a XML format, reduces the size of check dataand makes the process of reading the check data easier, whichfurthermore reduces the processing time.

The effects will be described on the basis of measurement values. Table2 shows periods of processing time from time of a user's operation topress a print button on a print setup screen to time when a creation ofprint data has been completed. The periods of the processing time in thetable are average values obtained by measuring the above-describedperiod of processing time five times in each of a condition that theprocessing uses the above-described control of prohibition processingand a condition that the processing does not use the above-describedcontrol of prohibition processing, and calculating an average of themeasured values.

TABLE 2 Without applying With applying prohibition prohibitionprocessing processing Reduction Document control (sec) control (sec)rate (%) Time period of processing up to completion of print dataSP03P_AC.pdf 13.58 9.83 27.61 J9.doc 9.53 7.65 19.73 Period ofprohibition processing time SP03P_AC.pdf 9.18 5.43 40.85 J9.doc 4.58 2.741.05

As shown in Table 2, applying the above-described control of theprohibition processing can reduce the time period of the processing upto the time of when the creation of print data has been completed byabout 20% to about 30%, and can reduce the period of prohibitionprocessing time by about 40%. A reduction of the period of processingtime up to the time of completion of print data creation can improve theperformance of a printer driver.

EXAMPLE

In order to describe the above-mentioned embodiments in more detail,description will be given to a non-transitory computer-readable storagemedia each storing a printer driver and print control methods of theprinter driver pertaining to one example of the present invention withreference to FIGS. 1 to 16. FIG. 1 is a diagram schematicallyillustrating a constitution of a printing system of the present example.FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating a constitution of a computingdevice of the present example. FIG. 3 is a functional block diagram of acomputing device of the present example. FIG. 4 illustrates an example aGPD file. Each of FIGS. 5 and 6 is a flowchart illustrating prohibitionprocessing of a computing device of the present example. Each of FIGS. 7and 8 illustrates an example of PrintTicket of the present example.FIGS. 9A and 9B illustrate an example of a hash code table of thepresent example. FIGS. 10A to 10C illustrate an example of PrintTicketto which a hash value is added. FIG. 11 illustrates an example of asetup item list. Each of FIGS. 12 and 13 illustrates an example of asetup condition table. FIG. 14 is illustrates an example of a constraintexpression. FIGS. 15A, 15B and 15C are diagrams for illustrating effectsof control of the prohibition processing of the present example. FIG. 16is a diagram schematically illustrating the prohibition processing ofthe present example.

As illustrated in FIG. 1, a printing system of the present exampleincludes printer devices 10 which execute print processing according toprint instructions, and a print instructing device (hereinafter,referred to as a computing device 20) which gives print instructions tothe printer devices 10. The printer devices 10 and the computing device20 are communicably connected together with a communication network suchas a LAN (Local Area Network) and a WAN (Wide Area Network).

Printer devices 10 can be general printers and MFPs (Multi-FunctionPeripherals). Each of the printer devices 10 is configured to analyzeprint data sent from computing device 20, rasterize pieces of the printdata corresponding to pages of a document to create image data for eachof the pages, and print images based on the image data by using an imageforming process such as an electrophotograpic process and anelectrostatic printing process.

Computing device 20 can be a personal computer or a mobile device (suchas a smart phone and a tablet terminal) which supports a MicrosoftWindows operating system. Computing device 20 includes control section21, storing section 22, communication interface (I/F) section 23,display section 24, and operating section 25, as illustrated in FIG. 2.

Control section 21 includes a CPU (Central Processing Unit) 21 a andstorage devices such as a ROM (Read Only Memory) 21 b and a RAM (RandomAccess Memory) 21 c. CPU 21 a reads various programs stored in ROM 21 bor storing section 22, and then, develops and executes the programs onRAM 21 c, where the various programs include programs for controllingoperations of computing device 20, an operating system (in the presentexample, Microsoft Windows operating system on which a version 4 printerdriver can be executed), application programs and printer drivers forcontrolling printer devices 10 (in the present example, a version 4printer driver for carrying out prohibition processing using a scriptlanguage like JavaScript). The application programs, the printer drivercore component and the print setup UT component will be described later.

Storing section 22 includes a memory device, such as a HDD (Hard DiskDrive), and stores various data including programs, document data andprint data.

Communication interface section 23 is composed of a device such as a NIC(Network Interface Card) and a modem, and is configured to perform datacommunication with printer devices 10 through a wireless network or awired network.

Display section 24 includes a device such as a LCD (Liquid CrystalDisplay), and displays screens of application programs and a print setupscreen created by the print setup UI component.

Operating section 25 includes devices such as a mouse, a keyboard and atouch sensor formed on display section 24, and allows a user to performoperations such as creating documents and setting print features ofprinter devices 10.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram illustrating functions and sections realizedby control section 21 of computing device 20. Control section 21 ofcomputing device 20, when CPU 21 a executes application programs 30,printer driver core component 40, and print setup UI component 50,serves the functions of these programs.

Application program 30 is a program to be executed on an operatingsystem (for example, Microsoft Office which can run on Windows operatingsystems) for creating document data to be printed. The operating systemand application 30, when being executed, give printer driver corecomponent 40 an instruction of prohibition processing which determineswhether a conflict of settings of a print feature occurs, in steps ofprint processing.

Printer driver core component 40 is a program to be executed on anoperating system, and when being executed, causes the control section 21to serve as a printer driver core section which sends a printinstruction to printer device 10 in cooperation with application program30 and print setup UI component 50. The printer driver core component 40includes GPD file 41, UserPropertybag (user property bag) 42,configuration processing section 43, JavaScript constraint section 44,rendering processing section 45 and print filter 46, and when beingexecuted, causes the control section 21 to serve their functions.

GPD file 41 is one of configuration files and includes definition ofvarious print features of printer device 10. UserPropertybag 42 is aregion for storing data, such as a hash code table, a setup item list,setup condition table and constraint expressions which will be describedlater. Configuration processing section 43 performs the followingprocessing. Configuration processing section 43 createsPrintCapabilities (print capability information) based on GPD file 41,where PrintCapabilities includes descriptions of setup items associatedwith the print features which can be set by users and descriptions ofoption values available for each setup item associated with the printingfeatures and both descriptions are described in a structured languagelike XML. Configuration processing section 43 further createsPrintTicket (print setup information) which includes descriptions of anoption value for each setup item, chosen by a user from among the optionvalues described in PrintCapabilities, by using a structured languagelike XML. Configuration processing section 43 further invokes JavaScriptconstraint section 44.

JavaScript constraint section 44 processes PrintTicket and/orPrintCapabilities to handle a conflict between settings (setup itemsand/or setup options) associated with the print features. For example,under the situation that a combination of a setting of a first feature(for example, an imposition feature) and a setting of a second feature(for example, a punching feature) is invalid, JavaScript constraintsection 44 modifies one of the settings to be consistent with the other.JavaScript constraint section 44 is capable of editing PrintTicketand/or PrintCapabilities by using JavaScript. Rendering processingsection 45 converts print instructions sent from application program 30into descriptions in language (for example, PDL or Page DescriptionLanguage) which can be interpreted by printer device 10. Print filter 46edits instructions for drawing and edits print control commands, in arendering process.

Print setup UI component 50 is a program to be executed on an operatingsystem and when being executed, causes the control section 21 to serveas a print setup UI section. Print setup UI component 50 includes PT/PCprocessing section 51 and UI processing section 52, and when beingexecuted, causes the control section 21 to serve their functions.

PT/PC processing section 51 processes (or interprets) PrintTicket and/orPrintCapabilities obtained from printer driver core component 40(printer driver core section). UI processing section 52 creates printsetup screen 60 on the basis of PrintTicket and/or PrintCapabilitiesinterpreted by the PT/PC processing section 51, and controls displaysection 24 to display the print setup screen 60.

FIG. 4 illustrates an example of a description of GPD file 41. In GPDfile 41, each print feature is defined at “*Feature:” shown in FIG. 4,and an option value of each print feature are defined at “*Option:”, asa child element of the “*Feature”. In this example, the GPD file 41includes definition of print features, “Orientation”, “PaperSize”, and“Stapling”.

In the present example, there will be given a description that GPD file41 is used as a configuration file to define print features.Alternatively, the prohibition processing method of the present exampleis applicable similarly to the situation that a PPD (PostScript PrinterDescription) file is used as the configuration file.

Hereinafter, operations of the printer driver (control of prohibitionprocessing) of the present example will be described. CPU 21 a reads aprinter driver stored in ROM 21 b or storing section 22, and then,develops and executes the printer driver on RAM 21 c, to realizeprocesses of the steps illustrated in the flowcharts of FIGS. 5 and 6.In the present example, there is provided a description of processingcarried out by validatePrintTicket( ) as a function in JavaScriptConstraint section 44 to be invoked by configuration processing section43. The validatePrintTicket( ) is a function to be invoked when anoperating system and application 30 has determined that check ofPrintTicket is needed, and invoked at a time when print setting ischanged or when print processing is carried out. On carrying out printprocessing, the function is invoked several times.

At the beginning of the prohibition processing, a check for a conflictof option values may be carried out immediately. However, if no changeshave been made in settings of print features, there is no need to thecheck. Therefore, in the present example, the following processing isperformed firstly so as to furthermore reduce the prohibition processingtime. That is, the processing includes: calculating information, such asa hash value and a checksum, from PrintTicket which is made in acondition that there is no conflict between option values, and storingthe information, where a hash value is a fixed-length pseudo-randomnumber which is obtained by a certain calculation procedure based onoriginal data so as to represent characteristics of the original data,and the checksum is a value obtained by dividing original data intoseveral blocks, assuming a piece of data in each block as a numericalvalue, and calculating the sum of the numerical values of all theblocks. “Sameness check information” or “identification information” isa general term of a hash value and a checksum. The processing furtherincludes: calculating sameness check information from the PrintTicket ata beginning of prohibition processing for the PrintTicket concerned, andskipping a check for a conflict between option values if there is nodifference between the stored sameness check information and thecalculated sameness check information.

Concretely, first, JavaScript constraint section 44 calculates samenesscheck information (a hash value, in the present example) fromPrintTicket to be checked (S101). FIG. 7 illustrates PrintTicket (1)which is an example of PrintTicket to be checked. PrintTicket (1)includes descriptions of print settings so as to set“JobCopiesAllDocument” to “1” (which means to create one copy of theoriginal), set “PageMediaSize” to “ISOA3” (which means to set the papersize to A3), set “PageInputBin” to “Tray4” (which means to select thepaper feed tray “Tray 4”), and set “DocumentStaple” to “StapleDualLeft”(which means to staple paper sheets at two points at the left-handside).

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 obtains a list of hash valueswhich obtained in previous check processes from a hash code table whichwas stored in advance in UserPropertybag 42 (S102). FIG. 9A illustratesan example of the hash code table, and the hash code table stores hashcodes (hash values) calculated from PrintTicket which is made in acondition that there is no conflict between the option values. In thisexample, the hash code table stores two hash values of “1d43fe3c” and“4f3d274d”. The hash code table may store only the hash value calculatedfrom PrintTicket to be checked. However, the number of combinations ofsetup items of print features and corresponding option values arelimited, and it can be considered that there is a low probability that aconflict arises in settings associated with print features in thePrintTicket to be checked even under the condition that a hash value ofthe PrintTicket to be checked agree with hash values calculated fromanother PrintTicket. Therefore, in the hash code table, hash valuescalculated from all the PrintTickets which were checked may bedescribed.

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 determines whether the hash valuecalculated in S101 exists in the list of has values obtained in S102(S103). If the hash value calculated from PrintTicket (1) exists in thelist of hash values (YES in S103), JavaScript constraint section 44 endsthe prohibition processing because there is no conflict caused insettings of print features in the PrintTicket (1) and there is no needto carry out the process of checking for a conflict between optionvalues.

On the other hand, if the hash value calculated from PrintTicket (1)does not exist in the list of hash values (NO in S103), JavaScriptconstraint section 44 carries out the process of checking for a conflictbetween option values (S104) because JavaScript constraint section 44cannot know whether a conflict is caused in settings associated withprint features in the PrintTicket (1). This step is one of features ofthe present example and the details will be described below.

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 calculates a hash value from achecked PrintTicket in which the conflict was corrected (S105). FIG. 8illustrates PrintTicket (2) which is an example of PrintTicket which waschecked. In PrintTicket (2) in FIG. 8, the name property of the Valuenode defined for “PageInputBin” was changed to “AutoSelect” and the nameproperty of the Value node defined for “DocumentStaple” was changed to“None” (see the broken-line boxes in FIG. 8).

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 stores the hash value calculatedin S105 into the hash code table (S106). Each of FIG. 9A and FIG. 9Billustrates an example of the hash code table. The hash value(“6a5b341f” in this example) calculated from checked PrintTicket (2) isadded into the original hash code table shown in FIG. 9A and modified asillustrated in FIG. 9B (see the broken-line boxes in FIG. 9B).

As described above, by skipping the process of checking for a conflictof option values under the condition that the hash value calculated fromPrintTicket to be checked agrees with any one of hash values which werecalculated in previous check processes and are described in the hashcode table, the prohibition processing time can be shortened and thetime to the start time of print processing can be shortened.

While the above is a description about an example that a hash code tablestores a hash value calculated from PrintTicket to be checked, thePrintTicket to be checked may store the hash value calculated fromitself. For example, as illustrated in FIG. 10A, a hash value(“1d43fe3c” in this example) is calculated from PrintTicket to bechecked, and then, the hash value is written at a certain location (forexample, at the end) of the PrintTicket in the XML format. Next, whenprohibition processing to be carried out on the PrintTicket is requestedagain, another hash value is calculated by using the PrintTicketexcluding the former hash value, and the obtained hash value (the latterhash value) and the former hash value added to the PrintTicket arecompared with each other. If these hash values agree with each other(see FIG. 10B), a process of checking for a conflict between optionvalues is skipped because there is caused no conflict of settings ofprint features in the PrintTicket. On the other hand, if these hashvalues do not agree with each other (see FIG. 10C), the obtained(latter) hash value (“4f3d274d” in this example) is added to a certainlocation. After that, if prohibition processing to be carried out on thePrintTicket to be checked is requested again, another hash value iscalculated by using the PrintTicket excluding the hash values, and thecalculated hash value and the plural hash values added to thePrintTicket are compared with each other. If the currently calculatedhash value agrees with any one of the plural hash values, a process ofchecking for a conflict between option values is skipped. As shown bythe above description, by adding a hash value or hash values toPrintTicket, the prohibition processing time can be shortened and thetime period to the start time of print processing can be shortened,similarly to the above-described example using a hash code table.

Next, a process of checking for a conflict between option values as oneof features of the present example will be described. As described inthe above, PrintTicket was repeatedly read each time the process ofchecking for a conflict between option values was carried out in aconventional method. The method needs to read PrintTicket which isrelatively large in data size, further needs to read PrintTicketincluding a part which is unnecessary for the check process, and furtherneeds to read PrintTicket for each of constraint expressions which willbe described later. Therefore, it takes time for the processing. In viewof that, the present example employs the following process of checkingfor a conflict between option values. The process includes extractingsetup items and corresponding option values which are needed for a checkfor a conflict between option values, from PrintTicket; creating checkdata which is relatively small in data size, on the basis of the setupitems and the option values; and checking the check data for a conflictbetween option values. Hereinafter, the process of checking for aconflict between option values will be described with referring to theflowchart of FIG. 6 and the schematic diagram of FIG. 16.

First, JavaScript constraint section 44 interprets PrintTicket to bechecked (PrintTicket (1) illustrated in FIG. 7) and reads setup itemsand option values described in the PrintTicket (5201).

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 creates check data (which isassumed as a setting condition table in this example) on the basis of asetup item list which was previously created (S202 and A in FIG. 16).FIG. 11 illustrates an example of a setup item list which lists names ofsetup items to be used in constraint expressions. Using the setup itemlist, JavaScript constraint section 44 sets one or more items of SETUPITEM and one or more items of OPTION VALUE into the setup conditiontable. FIG. 12 illustrates setup condition table (1) which is an exampleof a setup condition table, and the setup table is created on the basisof PrintTicket (1) illustrated in FIG. 7 and the setup item listillustrated in FIG. 11. SETUP ITEM corresponds to a name property ofFeature node or Parameterinit node described in PrintTicket. OPTIONVALUE corresponds to a value of Value node or Option node described inPrintTicket. CHANGED in the table represents a change condition flagwhich is set to true when an option value in the table is changed orreplaced. In the present example, the setup item list has been preparedin advance. Alternatively, JavaScript constraint section 44 may defineone or more setup items to be used in a constraint expression which willbe described below, and read information corresponding to the one ormore setup items which has been defined, from PrintTicket. Further,while the present example uses the setup condition table as check data,the check data may have an arbitrary structure other than a tablestructure. The check data can be described in an arbitrary data format,such as a XML format similarly to PrintTicket, and a text format. Makingthe check data described in a text format, can reduce the size of thecheck data and make a process of reading the check data easy, which maybe advantageous because it can furthermore shorten the prohibitionprocessing time.

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 reads constraint expressions forchecking for a conflict between option values associated with printfeatures, one line at a time (S203). FIG. 14 illustrates an example ofconstraint expressions. Concretely, in the constraint expressions, thefirst line indicates that when the option “A3” is selected for thefeature of page size and the option “Tray4” is selected for the featureof paper feed tray, the selected option value for the feature of paperfeed tray is constrained to be “AutoSelect”. The second line indicatesthat when the option “A3” is selected for the feature of page size andthe option “StapleDualLeft” (stapling at two points at the left handside) is selected for the feature of stapling, the selected option valuefor the feature of stapling is constrained to be “None”.

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 carries out a check for aconflict between option values, by using the setup condition table (1)illustrated in FIG. 12 and a constraint expression read in S203 (S204and B in FIG. 16). Concretely, JavaScript constraint section 44 checkswhether the combination of the setup items and the option valuesdescribed in setup condition table (1) shown in FIG. 12 agrees with thecombination of the setup items and the option values defined in theconstraint expression. In the conventional prohibition processing, sucha check was carried out by using PrintTicket, which is relatively largerin data size, and a constraint expression, and it took longer time forthe check process. However, in the present example, a check for aconflict between option values is carried out by using setup conditiontable (1), which is relatively smaller in data size, and a constraintexpression, which can reduce the period of time needed for the check fora conflict between option values.

If JavaScript constraint section 44 has found a occurrence of a conflictbetween option values as a result of the check in S204 (YES in S205),JavaScript constraint section 44 changes the option value according tothe constraint expression to solve the conflict, and replaces the optionvalue in the table, which is set for the setup item causing theconflict, with another option value which does not cause a conflictbetween option values (S206 and C in FIG. 16). FIG. 13 illustrates setupcondition table (2) which is an example of a setup condition table afterthe check for a conflict between option values has been completed. Inthe illustrated table, the option value of the setup item“psk:PageInputBin” is changed into “psk:AutoSelect”, and the changecondition flag “CHANGED” is set to “true”. Further, the option value ofthe setup item “psk:DocumentStaple” is changed into “psk:None”, and thechange condition flag “CHANGED” is set to “true” (see the broken-linedbox in FIG. 13). If JavaScript constraint section 44 has not found anoccurrence of a conflict of option values (NO in S205), JavaScriptconstraint section 44 does nothing and the flow skips to S207.

Next, JavaScript constraint section 44 determines whether a nextconstraint expression exists (S207), the flow returns to S203 if a nextconstraint expression exists, and the similar processing is repeateduntil JavaScript constraint section 44 does not find an unusedconstraint expression illustrated in FIG. 14. When the determiningprocess has been carried out on all the constraint expressions,JavaScript constraint section 44 writes option values for each of whichthe conflict has been solved, into PrintTicket (S208 and D in FIG. 16).Concretely, by using setup condition table (2) illustrated in FIG. 13,JavaScript constraint section 44 writes the option value of the setupitem for which the change condition flag “CHANGED” is set to “true”.FIG. 8 illustrates PrintTicket (2) which is an example of PrintTicketwhere the option values have been overwritten. In PrintTicket (2),similarly to setup condition table (2), the option value of the setupitem “psk:PageInputBin” is changed into “psk:AutoSelect”, and the optionvalue of the setup item “psk:DocumentStaple” is changed into “psk:None”.

As described above, a process of checking for a conflict between optionvalues includes: reading setup items listed in a setup item list whichhas been created in advance, and option values, from PrintTicket;creating a setup condition table which is relatively small in data size;and carrying out the check for a conflict between option values, byusing the setup condition table. Thereby, a period of time needed forthe process of checking for a conflict between option values can bereduced greatly in comparison with a conventional method, because theconventional method uses PrintTicket, which is relatively large in datasize and includes an unnecessary part for the check for a conflict ofoption values, and reads the entire of PrintTicket in a process ofchecking for a conflict between option values, for each of constraintexpressions.

Hereinafter, there will be given a description about effects of areduction of time period of prohibition processing using two kinds ofcontrol, where one is a control (which is an optional control to becarried out as occasion demands) to compare hash values and skip the aprocess of checking for a conflict between option values as illustratedin FIG. 5 and the other is a control (which is one of features of thepresent example) to carry out the process of checking for a conflictbetween option values, by using a setup condition table as illustratedin FIG. 6. Each of FIGS. 15A to 15C is a table for comparing measurementresults of periods of time of the processing in the condition that theabove control is applied to the processing and the condition that theabove control is not applied to the processing. Each of the measurementresults is an average value obtained by measuring the above-describedperiod of time five times in each condition and calculating an averageof the measured values. The measurement conditions are the same as thoseof Table 1. There are two kinds of test data as measurement targets,document “SPO3P_AC.pdf” composed of one page and document “J9.doc”composed of five pages. As the measurement environment, Windows 8 Pro,Intel Core i5-2400 CPU 3.10 GHz (INTEL CORE is a registered trademark ofIntel Corporation), 8.00 GB memory, and 400 GB (remaining 100 GB) HDDwere used; and the documents were processed by using applications, AdobeReader 11.0.3 (ADOBE and READER are either registered trademarks ofAdobe Systems) and Microsoft Word 2010.

FIG. 15A is a table showing periods of time of the processing under thecondition that only the control to compare hash values and skip theprocess of checking for a conflict between option values is applied tothe print processing, and the processing does not include the control tocarry out the check process by using a setup condition table (that is,the processing includes reading PrintTicket and carrying out the checkfor a conflict between option values, for each constraint expression).As can be seen from FIG. 15A, employing the control to compare hashvalues and skipping the check process, can reduce the prohibitionprocessing time by 30% to 40%, and can reduce the period of theprocessing time until the completion of the print data creation by 17%to 20%, in comparison with the case the control is not applied to theprocessing.

FIG. 15B is a table showing periods of time of the processing under thecondition that only the control to carry out the process of checking fora conflict between option values, by using a setup condition table isapplied to the print processing, and the processing does not include thecontrol to compare hash values and skip the check process (that is, inthe processing, the check process is carried out every time when theprohibition processing is demanded). As can be seen from FIG. 15B,employing the control to carry out the check process by using a setupcondition table, can reduce the prohibition processing time by about40%, and can reduce the period of time until the completion of the printdata creation by 20% to 22%, in comparison with the case that just thecontrol to compare hash values and skipping the check process is appliedto the processing.

FIG. 15C is a table showing periods of time of the processing under thecondition that both of the control to compare hash values and skip thecheck process and the control to carry out the check process by using asetup condition table are applied to the processing. As can be seen fromFIG. 15C, employing both of the controls can reduce the prohibitionprocessing time by about 60%, and can reduce the period of time untilthe completion of the print data creation by 30% to 40%, in comparisonwith the case that none of those two controls are applied to theprocessing. It is found that a combination of those two controlsexhibits remarkable effects of reduction of period of the processingtime.

The scope of the present invention is not limited to the aforementionedembodiments and examples. Disclosed configurations of the aforementionedprinter driver and the disclosed print control method of the printerdriver can be varied by a skilled person without departing from thespirit and scope of the invention.

For example, the description about a version 4 printer driver was givenin the above example, but the aforementioned printer driver and themethod may be applied similarly to an arbitrary printer driver whichuses a script language like JavaScript.

What is claimed is:
 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage mediumstoring a printer driver to be executed in a computing device whichgives print instructions to a printer device, the printer driver, whenbeing executed by a processor of the computing device, causing thecomputing device to perform prohibition processing comprising: obtainingsetup items associated with print features of the printer device andoption values set for the setup items from PrintTicket, to create checkdata by using the setup items and the option values; checking the checkdata for a setup item causing a conflict between option values; and inresponse to finding a setup item causing a conflict between optionvalues, replacing an option value in the PrintTicket, which is set forthe setup item causing the conflict with the option values among thesetup items in the PrintTicket, with another option value which does notcause a conflict between option values, wherein the check data issmaller in data size than the PrintTicket, wherein the checking thecheck data includes replacing an option value in the check data, whichis set for the setup item causing the conflict with the option valuesamong the setup items in the check data, with another option value whichdoes not cause a conflict between option values, and adding informationindicating that the option value has been replaced into the check data,and the replacing the option value in the PrintTicket, includesreferring to the information added to the check data, and replacing theoption value in the PrintTicket, which is set for the setup item causingthe conflict with the option values among the setup items in thePrintTicket, with the option value in the check data which does notcause a conflict between option values.
 2. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein the obtaining thesetup items and the option values from the PrintTicket includes,obtaining, from the PrintTicket, only one or more predetermined setupitems among the setup items in the PrintTicket and one or more optionvalues set for the one or more predetermined setup items.
 3. Thenon-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein thecheck data is checked by using a constraint expression, and theobtaining the setup items and the option values from the PrintTicketincludes, obtaining, from the PrintTicket, only one or more setup itemsamong the setup items in the PrintTicket and one or more option valuesset for the one or more setup items, where the one or more setup itemsis referred to by the constraint expression.
 4. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium of claim 3, wherein the check data ischecked by using a plurality of constraint expressions, and the checkingthe check data includes checking the check data for a setup item causinga conflict between option values by using each of the constraintexpressions.
 5. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ofclaim 1, wherein the PrintTicket is described in an Extensible MarkupLanguage format, and the check data is described in a text format. 6.The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, whereinthe printer driver is a version 4 printer driver to be executed on aWindows (a registered trademark) operating system.
 7. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium of claim 6, wherein each of the setupitems in the PrintTicket corresponds to a Feature element or aParameterinit element, and each of the option values in the PrintTicketcorresponds to an Option element or a Value element.
 8. Thenon-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 1, wherein theprohibition processing further comprises: before the obtaining the setupitems and the option values from the PrintTicket, calculating firstidentification information to be used for identifying a plurality ofpieces of information, by using the PrintTicket; comparing the firstidentification information with second identification informationpreviously calculated by using the PrintTicket made in a condition thatthere is no conflict between the option values in the PrintTicket; uponthe first identification information agreeing with the secondidentification information, skipping all the obtaining the setup itemsand the option values from PrintTicket, checking the check data, and thereplacing the option value in the PrintTicket; and upon the firstidentification information being different from the secondidentification information, performing all the obtaining the setup itemsand the option values from PrintTicket, checking the check data, and thereplacing the option value in the PrintTicket.
 9. The non-transitorycomputer-readable storage medium of claim 8, wherein each of the firstidentification information and the second identification information isa hash value or a checksum.
 10. The non-transitory computer-readablestorage medium of claim 1, wherein the obtaining includes: creating asetup condition table as the check data in a text format based on asetup item list that lists the setup items; and setting the setup itemsand the option values into the setup condition table.
 11. A printcontrol method of a printer driver to be executed in a computing devicewhich gives print instructions to a printer device, the printer driver,when being executed by a processor of the computing device, causing thecomputing device to perform prohibition processing, the methodcomprising: obtaining setup items associated with print features of theprinter device and option values set for the setup items fromPrintTicket, to create check data by using the setup items and theoption values; checking the check data for a setup item causing aconflict between option values; and in response to finding a setup itemcausing a conflict between option values, replacing an option value inthe PrintTicket, which is set for the setup item causing the conflictwith the option values among the setup items in the PrintTicket, withanother option value which does not cause a conflict between optionvalues, wherein the check data is smaller in data size than thePrintTicket, wherein the checking the check data includes replacing anoption value in the check data, which is set for the setup item causingthe conflict with the option values among the setup items in the checkdata, with another option value which does not cause a conflict betweenoption values, and adding information indicating that the option valuehas been replaced into the check data, and the replacing the optionvalue in the PrintTicket, includes referring to the information added tothe check data, and replacing the option value in the PrintTicket, whichis set for the setup item causing the conflict with the option valuesamong the setup items in the PrintTicket, with the option value in thecheck data which does not cause a conflict between option values. 12.The method of claim 11, wherein the obtaining the setup items and theoption values from the PrintTicket includes, obtaining, from thePrintTicket, only one or more predetermined setup items among the setupitems in the PrintTicket and one or more option values set for the oneor more predetermined setup items.
 13. The method of claim 11, whereinthe check data is checked by using a constraint expression, and theobtaining the setup items and the option values from the PrintTicketincludes, obtaining, from the PrintTicket, only one or more setup itemsamong the setup items in the PrintTicket and one or more option valuesset for the one or more setup items, where the one or more setup itemsis referred to by the constraint expression.
 14. The method of claim 11,wherein the check data is checked by using a plurality of constraintexpressions, and the checking the check data includes checking the checkdata for a setup item causing a conflict between option values by usingeach of the constraint expressions.
 15. The method of claim 11, whereinthe PrintTicket is described in an Extensible Markup Language format,and the check data is described in a text format.
 16. The method ofclaim 11, wherein the printer driver is a version 4 printer driver to beexecuted on a Windows (a registered trademark) operating system.
 17. Themethod of claim 16, wherein each of the setup items in the PrintTicketcorresponds to a Feature element or a Parameterinit element, and each ofthe option values in the PrintTicket corresponds to an Option element ora Value element.
 18. The method of claim 11, wherein the prohibitionprocessing further comprises: before the obtaining the setup items andthe option values from the PrintTicket, calculating first identificationinformation to be used for identifying a plurality of pieces ofinformation, by using the PrintTicket; comparing the firstidentification information with second identification informationpreviously calculated by using the PrintTicket made in a condition thatthere is no conflict between the option values in the PrintTicket; uponthe first identification information agreeing with the secondidentification information, skipping all the obtaining the setup itemsand the option values from PrintTicket, checking the check data, and thereplacing the option value in the PrintTicket; and upon the firstidentification information being different from the secondidentification information, performing all the obtaining the setup itemsand the option values from PrintTicket, checking the check data, and thereplacing the option value in the PrintTicket.
 19. The method of claim18, wherein each of the first identification information and the secondidentification information is a hash value or a checksum.